Pulmonary Diffusing Capacity for Nitric Oxide During Exercise in Morbid Obesity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Morbidly obese individuals may have altered pulmonary diffusion during exercise. PURPOSE: The purpose was to examine pulmonary diffusing capacity for nitric oxide (DLNO) and carbon monoxide (DLCO) during exercise in these subjects. METHODS: 10 morbidly obese subjects (age = 38 ± 9 yrs, 169 ± 8 cm, body mass index or BMI = 47 ± 7 kg/m2, peak oxygen consumption or O2peak = 2.4 ± 0.4 L/min ) and 9 non-obese controls (age = 41 ± 9 yrs, 165 ± 9 cm, BMI = 23 ± 2 kg/m2, O2peak = 2.6 ± 0.9 L/min) participated in two sessions The first measured resting O2 and O2peak for determination of wattage equating to 40, 75 and 90% O2 reserve. The second session measured pulmonary diffusion from single-breath maneuvers of 5 s each, as well as heart rate and O2 over three workloads. Each workload was separated by 5 min rest. RESULTS: DLNO, DLCO, and pulmonary capillary blood volume only when expressed relative to alveolar volume (VA) was larger in obese compared to non-obese groups (p ≤ 0.06). The slope between O2 and all measures of pulmonary diffusion, whether or not expressed to VA, were not different between groups (p > 0.10). CONCLUSION: The morbidly obese have increased pulmonary diffusion per unit increase in VA compared to non-obese controls .Sponsored by Quebec Health Research Foundation (FRSQ).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".